Georgia's awkward neighbours.

Georgia has summoned the Armenian Ambassador following meeting between Chairman of Armenian Parliament and South Ossetian official. In this op-ed for commonspace.eu Dennis Sammut discusses tensions in Georgia's relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan

The relationship between Georgia and its two neighbours in the South Caucasus - Armenia and Azerbaijan - has always been unusual. Even at best of times it is a difficult balancing act, trying to keep the best of relations with the two neighbours that consider each other enemies, whilst getting the best deal for Georgia in the meantime.

Relations between Georgians and Armenians have traditionally been competitive, but reasonably friendly. The two countries share a common Christian background and both boast to have some of the oldest roots of civilisation. There were often tense moments in the history of Georgian-Armenian relations but, with a few exceptions, common sense prevailed. Both sides knew that their nations were too intertwined for anything but good neighbourly relations to be acceptable.

Georgia's relationship with Azerbaijan has in modern times been less competitive, and thus somewhat easier to manage. Recent Azerbaijani assertiveness, fuelled by oil revenues, has not changed this very much because it also came with considerable economic benefit.

This has been the trend for the last two decades and more. At times, for example during the administration of President Shevardnadze, Georgia projected itself as the champion of the South Caucasus and positively promoted regional co-operation. Under President Saakashvili regional co-operation was out of favour, but the Georgian government maintained very good bilateral relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan nonetheless. The current Georgian government has stuck mainly to this format, whilst also supporting a trilateral relationship with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

But under the façade of Presidential hugs and promises of eternal friendship tensions exist. The large Armenian and Azerbaijani communities in Georgia have always been both a bridge for friendship and a source of tension. Some Georgians persist in seeing them as a fifth column, although in truth most of the minority communities have for most of the time been nothing but very compliant.

Over the last few days a number of new irritants have been introduced to this complex relationship. First, former President Saakashvili, who is wanted in Georgia by the Prosecutor's Office, turned up in Baku for a high profile event attended by President Aliev. Such a development could hardly have been possible without the approval of Aliev himself. Georgian calls for Saakashvili to be extradited were as expected, ignored. Azerbaijan has been irritated recently by the dislocation of some of their opposition to Tbilisi, and by the focus on Azerbaijan of some Georgian human rights activists. Many saw the presence of Saakashvili in Baku as a gentle reminder to Tbilisi that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Now in a second development in a week, the Armenian Ambassador in Tbilisi has been summoned to the Georgian Foreign Ministry and told in no uncertain terms of Georgia's displeasure that the Chairman of the Armenian Parliament had met the Chairman of the Parliament of South Ossetia. That the meeting has taken place has now been confirmed by both South Ossetian and Armenian sources, although a spokesman of the Armenian Parliament was quick to emphasise that the meeting was of a "private" nature. Georgia is very sensitive about contacts with the separatist leadership in South Ossetia, and Armenia would have been aware of these sensitivities. Why they chose to have the meeting now is not clear, but there is speculation that Armenia is upset with the new Georgia-Azerbaijan-Turkey relations.

It is most likely that for the moment all sides will let matters rest. There is neither the mood, nor the need at present to do otherwise. But the Georgian government would have drawn its own conclusions from the two incidents. There is a danger that the current Georgian government will imitate its predecessor and withdraw metaphorically from the Caucasus to the greener fields of Europe. After all Georgia is now the only South Caucasus country with Associate membership of the European Union. But such a policy is neither wise nor realistic. Georgia is the heart of the Caucasus and it has a role to play in the region. Georgia needs to manage its relationship with its two neighbours, even if, at least from Tbilisi's perspective, they are awkward neighbours.  

source: Dennis Sammut contributed this op-ed for commonspace.eu

photo: President Aliev of Azerbaijan with former president Saakashvili of Georgia (archive picture)

 

Latest

Editor's choice
News
Lula wins fourth term in Brazil, Vucic loses in Serbia

Lula wins fourth term in Brazil, Vucic loses in Serbia

In elections on both sides of the Atlantic, that are likely to have deep implications for their respective regions, one incumbent won, another lost. In Brazil, Latin America's biggest country, left-wing President Lula won a fourth term in office, defeating his right-wing challenger Flávio Bolsonaro. The 80-year-old, took just under 52% of the vote in a run-off on Sunday. Lula thanked cheering supporters in São Paulo and said he had defended Brazil's democracy. His opponent, Flavio Bolsonaro - who won the first round - says the result is "inexplicable" and called for it to be annulled. His father, ex-president Jair Bolsonaro, is currently serving a jail sentence under house arrest for plotting a coup after losing the last election. This election was bitterly fought - and it bucks a wider regional trend towards right-wing leaders. On the other side of the Atlantic, in Serbia, long-standing leader Aleksandar Vučić has admitted defeat to the student-led protest movement in snap parliamentary elections. "We still do not have final results... it is clear that we have lost these elections," the right-wing populist leader said as he conceded late on Sunday. Preliminary figures from Serbia's election commission indicated a record high turnout, which commentators had suggested would favour the student movement. Celebrations erupted after Vučić conceded. Vučić called the snap elections after two years of protests triggered by the collapse of a train station canopy in the city of Novi Sad, which killed 16 and was seen as emblematic of corruption and negligence. Both election results are going to have a deep impact on their respective regions.

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)